From pycyn@aol.com Sat Jul 01 17:55:52 2000
Return-Path:
Received: (qmail 14556 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2000 00:55:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Jul 2000 00:55:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo11.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.1) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Jul 2000 00:55:52 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.b2.752b21b (4232) for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 20:55:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 20:55:48 EDT
Subject: RE: Opposite of za'o
To: lojban@egroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41
From: pycyn@aol.com
Well, I am not sure you can keep making a point when its
natural ending time seems not to have come -- namely when
your interlocutor gets it (I am also unsure that you can keep
on making a point that you have only said once -- in a
parenthesis, at that). But, lets see:
{za'o, ba'o, pu'o, ca'o} span time, the first two from a
stopping point (natural though unused in the first case,
actual in the second) , the third up to a (perhaps unrealized)
starting point (can we work off the unrealized to get
something here -- natural but unused?), the last the span
between beginning and end On the other hand, {mo'u, co'u.
co'a, co'i, de'a, di'a} are all points, beginnings or endings of
events and so have no span. The mirror of {za'o} ought
then to be a spanner, covering time up to the natural
beginning, as {pu'o} mirrors {ba'o} (minus some
differences). But {co'u na} just stops the non-going (say)
or starts the going, but does not point to the space between
that transition and the natural transition point, which is what
"already" is supposed to do -- indeed, once the natural
starting point arrives, "he is already going" or whatever no
longer applies (mirroring the perfect this time). But {ba'o
co'u} doesn't do it quite, since, while we are in the
afterglow of the not going, we are in that as long as he
goes. What about the the change that happens with the
natural starting point, when we have to change from "is" to
"was" in English? We're trying to do three points work with
two points - {za'o} (and {ba'o}) doesn't have the actual
end-point to deal with. We can introduce a convention, I
suppose, but it seems to need more theoretical frame than it
has so far. The only one I see is that what is perfected is the
stopping SHORT of the not-going and that might
reasonably cease to exist when it was no longer short, i.e.,
at the natural stopping place.
By parity of reasoning (or "parody"), the mirror of {co'u}
should be a point and {za'o na} gives a span. In this case,
however, what we want is probably the span: "still not
going". And the end of that (and its aftermath?) is the point
(plus a perfective again?) "finally/at last" (? {co'u za'o na}?)
English would use the achievative to announce the start and
then go to past, but that may be peculiar. Or it may use the
progressive, somewhat strangely.
OK. Now if you have to say it again, it is keeping on.